Yet this kind of balance-sheet approach to empire has its limitations. Enquiring whether this or any other empire was a "good" or a "bad" thing is historically bogus, because answers to this question vary so much according to when, what and who you choose to look at, and, critically, according to who you are.

Look at how the British covered India with railroads, and it is easy to view them as modernisers. Look, however, at the abysmal levels of mass illiteracy in the subcontinent they left behind in , and they appear rather differently.

Ferguson knows this, of course, and is too good a historian to omit the dark sides of his subject: Ferguson also exaggerates the degree to which British imperialism was distinctive and better.

The idea, for instance, that it was the Victorians who invented the notion that overseas initiatives should be for God not gain would have astounded those French, Portuguese and Spanish Catholic Fathers who had earlier devoted far more care to the indigenous peoples of the Americas than many of their Anglo, Protestant competitors.

The most problematic issue raised but not resolved here, however, is the question of what criteria are to be invoked when assessing empire.

Doubtless many of the Normans who invaded England in were decent chaps and they arguably made it a more efficient state, but the English themselves still referred for centuries to the "Norman yoke".

By the same token, those who were once on the receiving end of British imperial invasions are less likely than us to view them in a positive light.

Ferguson argues this is short-sighted because, whatever its faults, British empire fostered globalisation, overseas investment and free trade and - in the long run - this raised levels of prosperity all round.

The immediate impact of British imperial free-trading was often the collapse of local indigenous industries which were in no position to compete, and a consequent destruction of livelihoods and communities.

This points to the tension at the heart of empire. Its exponents may seek as many Britons genuinely did to make the world a better place, but they also want to dominate.

The Victorians wanted to spread the gospel of free trade, but they also wanted to continue being the premier workshop of the world.

In much the same way, contemporary America wants often with the best of intentions the world to be wide open to its ideas, exports and technologies, but not if this means third-world nations developing weapons of mass destruction or the Europeans competing in space.

One of the reasons why we all need to stop approaching empire in simple "good" or "bad" thing terms, and instead think intelligently and enquiringly about its many and intrinsic paradoxes, is that versions of the phenomenon are still with us.

Ferguson argues that the United States should cease being in denial about its imperial status and face up to its global responsibilities.

He then looks at the role of voluntary and involuntary emigration, among blacks and whites, and at missionaries and reformers. Chapters four and five deal with the hardworking bureaucrats and patrician proconsuls, and with the quantum rise in military coercive capacity in the late 19th century; how the Maxim gun and later the aeroplane scattered rebellious, ill-equipped colonial subjects across red-soaked battlefields like "dirty bits of newspaper".

The final chapter tells how the European powers became caught up and consumed after by the same kinds of hi-tech violence they had previously launched against other continents.

Empire itself, however, endured: Throughout, Ferguson offers a bracing corrective to those cruder critics who persist in analysing the empire only in terms of racism, violence and exploitation.

He draws attention, as others have done, to its episodes of idealism, creativity and administrative integrity, to its many examples of overlap and collaborations between different peoples, and above all to its historical context.

Yet this kind of balance-sheet approach to empire has its limitations. Enquiring whether this or any other empire was a "good" or a "bad" thing is historically bogus, because answers to this question vary so much according to when, what and who you choose to look at, and, critically, according to who you are.

Look at how the British covered India with railroads, and it is easy to view them as modernisers. Look, however, at the abysmal levels of mass illiteracy in the subcontinent they left behind in , and they appear rather differently.

Ferguson knows this, of course, and is too good a historian to omit the dark sides of his subject: Ferguson also exaggerates the degree to which British imperialism was distinctive and better.

The idea, for instance, that it was the Victorians who invented the notion that overseas initiatives should be for God not gain would have astounded those French, Portuguese and Spanish Catholic Fathers who had earlier devoted far more care to the indigenous peoples of the Americas than many of their Anglo, Protestant competitors.

The most problematic issue raised but not resolved here, however, is the question of what criteria are to be invoked when assessing empire.

Doubtless many of the Normans who invaded England in were decent chaps and they arguably made it a more efficient state, but the English themselves still referred for centuries to the "Norman yoke".

By the same token, those who were once on the receiving end of British imperial invasions are less likely than us to view them in a positive light.

Ferguson argues this is short-sighted because, whatever its faults, British empire fostered globalisation, overseas investment and free trade and - in the long run - this raised levels of prosperity all round.

The immediate impact of British imperial free-trading was often the collapse of local indigenous industries which were in no position to compete, and a consequent destruction of livelihoods and communities.

You can search the forum without needing to register. You need to be logged in to use the vocabulary trainer.

Registration and use of the trainer are free of charge. You need to be logged in to start a new thread. Registration and participation are free!

Ask the LEO community. Recent lookups click on a word to display the dictionary results again: Zur mobilen Version wechseln.